There is no proof of creationism or evolution. Can please we move on now ?

Question

Theists: Believe what you like, but admit that there is nothing which is verifiable as indisputable proof. You cannot simply claim your belief as proof, since atheists could do the same, and that would void your argument.

Atheists: It is the THEORY of evolution. Understand this. If it ever gets proven it will be the LAW of evolution. Until this happens don't dare to claim it is fact. It is unscientific to do so, and so would void your use of science as an argument.

I accept that I am wrong about the law/theory definition. It was what I was taught in school, and apparently that has either (a) changed (b) I was lied to or much more likely that (c) I was taught a ridiculously oversimplified version. There is no point in the derisive suggestion that I should go back to school, as that is where the problem occured in the first place.

I'm not going to let it go that easily though. Old scientific theories have been disproved and replaced by newer ones before (such as the phlogiston theory to name but one). You must therefore accept that while a scientific theory can be considered to be true now, it is not reasonable to say that it is absolute fact for all time, and that you must admit science has been wrong before.

Answer 1

It is a fact, and you're listening to creationist propaganda. That "theory/law" thing is simply false, and it's straight out of the creationists' playbook. They were hoping you'd be gullible enough to believe it, and you were.

You should have made some effort to understand the issue instead of just parroting this nonsense. Science has nothing in common with what those propagandists have convinced you it's about. "Proof" is utterly irrelevant to science: that's your central mistake. Borg (below) gives you a nice little lesson on it: read his answer carefully, and learn something.
============
Later: A sincere congratulations on your mature response to discovering that you were wrong about that. I would have bet that instead you'd come back with some bad defensive argument. I'd have been wrong. Nicely done.

Now, re. the "absolute fact for all time" thing: such things do not exist. ALL of science is subject to revision when new evidence comes in. That's what makes science work so well. I don't merely admit that science has been wrong before, I proudly proclaim it. That's where science excels: in having the humility to admit that we don't know everything, and that sometimes what we do know is false, and having the integrity to revise our beliefs when we discover they were wrong.

If your goal is to honestly learn about the world around us, that's absolutely necessary.

Answer 2

NO THEORY IS PROVEN INTO A LAW!!!!!

That's not how science works.

There is the theory of Gravity, which is different than the Law of gravity.

There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. The two are different things. The theory will always describe how it is thought that something happens.

There may not be the proof you ask for, but theories, in science, require a LOT of evidence.

Creationism wouldn't even make it to the Hypothesis stage - it just doesn't have remotely enough evidence and the counter evidence is overwhelming.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; YOU CAN NEVER PROVE IT. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

Answer 3

The definition of a theory in science is different than it is in common usages. Many people do not realize that. Evolution is both a theory (mechanisms of how it occured) and a fact (that it has occured).

Scientific theory-In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Answer 4

Please find the definition of "theory" when related to science.

From wikipedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

I so wish people would GET that there are many gray areas in science and they all have a name. A scientific law has a GREAT deal of supporting experimental evidence. A scientific theory has SOME supporting evidence. A plain ole theory (the guess you make on a daily basis) has NO supporting evidence. Evolution has been shown to be supported by experimental evidence... therefore, it is a theory, not a hypothesis or GUESS.

Answer 5

Ok. This is the second post I've looked at where the JC Reddi-something has said, "It's fact. May Jesus bless," as if that answers all of life's questions. If only we could all be so mindlessly controlled by repeated phrases that hold no real world value.
This is completely correct. In fact, the way I see it... if you claim that one or the other is completely infallible, you are simply shutting your mind off to the inifinite other possibilities that exist. It's much more viable to admit that you don't know how we got here, or why, and try to figure it out. You never will... but abstract thought is great for your mind. JC, maybe you'll learn something... maybe you'll figure out that, "May Jesus bless," won't solve everything... or anything, for that matter.
Oh... and scientists believed the world was flat for a long time, and that the Earth was the center of the solar system. So I understand that his terminology is incorrect, but the idea that the book is not really closed on how we got here is what I'm saying he's completely correct about.

Answer 6

You're right, the word "law" in science is used for any theory that has been proven. That's not a misuse of the word "law" in a scientific context at all. You're 100% correct. The scientists are just lying when they say ridiculous things like:

"Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens."

EDIT: I agree, science has been wrong many times before. Religion, on the other hand, has NEVER been wrong! That's why we should reject all science and accept Christianity instead.

Answer 7

There is no proof for either. There is also no EVIDENCE (not the same thing) whatsoever for creationism. There is mountains of evidence supporting evolution. So evolution is right.

Like a lot of people here you demonstrate the common confusion about terms such as proof, evidence, theory (especially scientific theory),law and fact. But you'll get the hang of it if you keep watching.

Answer 8

Scientific theory: A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.

Answer 9

Um, evolution is proven. The theory of evolution is different. but, it has been proven that there is evolution. The theory is that humans evolved from early primates. The fact is that organisms evolve. That is why this discussion will never end. You have people who are refusing to acknowledge fact. And you have people unwilling to let anyone not acknowledge fact.

Answer 10

just because you don't understand basic science doesn't mean you can claim it is unscientific - learn a bit, so you don't look like a total idiot, evolution is undeniable fact, and there are many scientific facts which are not laws - laws pertains to physics, not science in general. Go back to elementary school.